Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The great Alabama polling Gamble. Robo calls v human interview

13

Comments

  • justin124justin124 Posts: 5,374

    justin124 said:

    On topic, very interesting analysis from Mike. Two questions though:

    1. Why do the companies not weight for their undersampled groups? Even if robocalls hit fewer young / Democrat-inclined voters, presumably they must know this and ought to weight the responses accordingly? Clearly, some don't have their methodology and adjustments right - you simply don't get that kind of spread from sampling - but the question is who?

    2. To what extent is a shy-GOP vote operating here? Robocalls (I presume these are genuinely automated "press 1 for Republican" type methodologies) should be less susceptible to voters adjusting their answers according to what they perceive to be the socially acceptable response.

    I agree with the contention that the race is wide open. I also agree that turnout will be critical: there is a limit to the Democrat vote. Who would I be backing if I were to place money? Jones. It's a lot closer than the 70:30-ish split the odds imply. Indeed, having just checked the odds, I think I might place a bet.

    Several of the Robo callers now seek to reach under-sampled groups online. Others do have weightings to balance out the shortages in those groups but this is a bit like GE2015 and GE2017. Using past vote as indicator of likelihood to vote now might not be good indicator now.

    An issue with Alabama is that there's is very little polling experience there. It is a rock-solid Red state s there has never been the need.





    It is not so many years since it was a Dixie Democrat state - the era of George Wallace etc.
    Like much of the South it flipped when the Democrats decided to oppose racism.

    It's unlikely to be forgiven lightly.
    It went Republican at Presidential elections as far back as 1964 when it supported Goldwater.The switch at Senatorial and Congressional elections was quite a bit later.
  • MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    eristdoof said:


    No taxation without representation.

    Excuse me! there is roughly a million residents of the UK who pay tax to the UK government but do not have citizenship, and so are not allowed to vote.

    I know, it is shameful.
    No it's not. It is the same in almost every other country in Europe and around the rest of the world.

    If you want to vote become a UK citizen. If you are not willing to show that sort of commitment then why should you get to decide in the future of the country.
    Because we already give away the vote to Commonwealth and Irish citizens.
    Better to get rid of that, if someone wants to vote in a UK election then they should be a citizen of the UK. I felt like a complete idiot telling my partner of 7 years that she couldn't vote but some random Indian getting off a plane to do a dodgy language course could. Either foreigners can or can't vote, the halfway house that we have is stupid.
    It may have something to do with these 'foreigners' coming from countries that supplied soldiers and other support for us in various wars. The profits we made in 'commonwealth' countries through colonialism would be another factor.

    But yes I think the situation needs to be....er....rationalised. Let's restrict the vote to those born within the sound of Bow Bells. That would simplify matters, and enable the voice of us true indigenous people to be heard.
    I'm not sure that the Indians and other commonwealth citizens arriving in t UK today had anything to do with that.
    No, and I didn't fight the Germans either but my father and grandfather did. So?
  • BromBrom Posts: 1,014
    Elliot said:

    kle4 said:

    saddo said:

    A majority of people (51%) think the Brexit process is going badly, the poll suggests. Only 21% think it is going well. What is striking is that ICM generated this result even though polling was carried out between Friday and Sunday, when news coverage was dominated by mostly positive reports about May managing to secure a Brexit deal early on Friday morning.
    Here are the detailed figures. People were asked overall how they thought the Brexit process was going.

    Very well: 4%

    Quite well: 17%

    Net well: 21%

    Quite badly: 29%

    Very badly: 22%

    Net badly: 51%

    Don’t know: 6%

    ICM’s Alex Turk writes:

    Hardly surprising that the public don't think much of it so far. You've got all the TV media channels constantly rubbishing the government until last Friday and the remainers are always going to be more passionate as they lost.

    Just as importantly, if the negotiations are going well, the government are hardly likely to go public as the EU will reset it's stance and make the next phases harder.

    The lesson from phase one is that no change and capitulating on everything can be spun as a success. Negative change is harder to disguise.

    May is hoping she can get away with signing a standstill transition deal with no real prospect of ever moving into a looser relationship for as long as the UK stays together.
    The lesson from phase 1 is that ultras cannot be satisfied. But we knew that.
    It's surprising how many of them are still on board. Is it because she's successfully fooled them, successfully spiked their guns, or neither?
    To my mind, I have been impressed Remainers have been kept on side despite no freedom of movement, the ECJ's influence ending and single market exit. That Remainers are now spinning this as "hahaha Leavers lost" suggests they actually care more about feeling they've symbolically won than anything else. For them the actual relationship doesn't matter so much as being able to feel superior to Leavers. That is useful knowlegde for Theresa May to exploit.
    Got to say I'm surprised how she's managed to get Clarke, Soubry and Morgan onside despite it looking increasingly likely freedom of movement will end. I suppose the promise of a deal and a meaningful EU trade deal even outside the single market is more important to them than the prospect of letting Jezza in the backdoor.

    The Guardian remainers of course will never be onside, only economic turmoil and an end to Brexit will suffice but so long as May can tie down those in the political centre that have voted Tory in the past she'll have done as much as she can.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 15,540

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    eristdoof said:


    No taxation without representation.

    Excuse me! there is roughly a million residents of the UK who pay tax to the UK government but do not have citizenship, and so are not allowed to vote.

    I know, it is shameful.
    No it's not. It is the same in almost every other country in Europe and around the rest of the world.

    If you want to vote become a UK citizen. If you are not willing to show that sort of commitment then why should you get to decide in the future of the country.
    Because we already give away the vote to Commonwealth and Irish citizens.
    Better to get rid of that, if someone wants to vote in a UK election then they should be a citizen of the UK. I felt like a complete idiot telling my partner of 7 years that she couldn't vote but some random Indian getting off a plane to do a dodgy language course could. Either foreigners can or can't vote, the halfway house that we have is stupid.
    It may have something to do with these 'foreigners' coming from countries that supplied soldiers and other support for us in various wars. The profits we made in 'commonwealth' countries through colonialism would be another factor.

    But yes I think the situation needs to be....er....rationalised. Let's restrict the vote to those born within the sound of Bow Bells. That would simplify matters, and enable the voice of us true indigenous people to be heard.
    I'm not sure that the Indians and other commonwealth citizens arriving in t UK today had anything to do with that.
    No, and I didn't fight the Germans either but my father and grandfather did. So?
    Which is why you and I bear little animosity towards modern Germany. Times have moved on and our voting rights should move with them.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 15,540
    I would, however, make an exception for the countries which still have the Queen as head of state. It seems fair that if we share the same head of state then we should allow them to vote.
  • The owner of Westfield shopping centres is being bought for $24.7bn (£18.5bn) in a deal which will see the malls launched in new markets.

    Despite brexit?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 22,091

    The owner of Westfield shopping centres is being bought for $24.7bn (£18.5bn) in a deal which will see the malls launched in new markets.

    Despite brexit?

    Westfield is Australian and has malls all over the place.
  • MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    eristdoof said:


    No taxation without representation.

    Excuse me! there is roughly a million residents of the UK who pay tax to the UK government but do not have citizenship, and so are not allowed to vote.

    I know, it is shameful.
    No it's not. It is the same in almost every other country in Europe and around the rest of the world.

    If you want to vote become a UK citizen. If you are not willing to show that sort of commitment then why should you get to decide in the future of the country.
    Because we already give away the vote to Commonwealth and Irish citizens.
    Better to get rid of that, if someone wants to vote in a UK election then they should be a citizen of the UK. I felt like a complete idiot telling my partner of 7 years that she couldn't vote but some random Indian getting off a plane to do a dodgy language course could. Either foreigners can or can't vote, the halfway house that we have is stupid.
    It may have something to do with these 'foreigners' coming from countries that supplied soldiers and other support for us in various wars. The profits we made in 'commonwealth' countries through colonialism would be another factor.

    But yes I think the situation needs to be....er....rationalised. Let's restrict the vote to those born within the sound of Bow Bells. That would simplify matters, and enable the voice of us true indigenous people to be heard.
    I'm not sure that the Indians and other commonwealth citizens arriving in t UK today had anything to do with that.
    No, and I didn't fight the Germans either but my father and grandfather did. So?
    Which is why you and I bear little animosity towards modern Germany. Times have moved on and our voting rights should move with them.
    Speak for yourself.

    There are aspects of 'modern' Germany I loathe. Weren't they protesting about those nasty Jews in Berlin recently? And then there are aspects I like, such as their positive attitude towards European integration.

    Some things about this country I like and dislike too.

    I'll speak for myself, thanks.
  • MaxPB said:

    I would, however, make an exception for the countries which still have the Queen as head of state. It seems fair that if we share the same head of state then we should allow them to vote.

    So do we have the right to vote in their elections? It shouldn't be one-way only.
  • eristdoof said:


    No taxation without representation.

    Excuse me! there is roughly a million residents of the UK who pay tax to the UK government but do not have citizenship, and so are not allowed to vote.

    I know, it is shameful.
    No it's not. It is the same in almost every other country in Europe and around the rest of the world.

    If you want to vote become a UK citizen. If you are not willing to show that sort of commitment then why should you get to decide in the future of the country.
    Because we already give away the vote to Commonwealth and Irish citizens.
    Yes, that ought to change. Only citizens should have the vote. I could accept a retained-rights provision so that no foreigner who currently has a vote is deprived of one, providing that they retain their residency.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 1,797

    The owner of Westfield shopping centres is being bought for $24.7bn (£18.5bn) in a deal which will see the malls launched in new markets.

    Despite brexit?

    Saw an excellent quip on Twitter that they should have waited until the Boxing Day sales. Everything at Westfield is cheaper then.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 30,258
    edited December 2017

    The owner of Westfield shopping centres is being bought for $24.7bn (£18.5bn) in a deal which will see the malls launched in new markets.

    Despite brexit?

    Westfield is Australian and has malls all over the place.
    They are Australian but previously sold many of their other locations eg all in Australia. The French company state they are buying them primarily for the uk and us locations and are clearly confident that us/uk consumers will continue to spend money they don't have.
  • Quincel said:

    The owner of Westfield shopping centres is being bought for $24.7bn (£18.5bn) in a deal which will see the malls launched in new markets.

    Despite brexit?

    Saw an excellent quip on Twitter that they should have waited until the Boxing Day sales. Everything at Westfield is cheaper then.
    Lol
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 15,540

    The owner of Westfield shopping centres is being bought for $24.7bn (£18.5bn) in a deal which will see the malls launched in new markets.

    Despite brexit?

    Westfield is Australian and has malls all over the place.
    The two main London sites are seen as their most valuable properties and made them a takeover target. Additionally the potential to redevelop their Croydon site could be a fairly easy RoI opportunity.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 15,540

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    eristdoof said:


    No taxation without representation.

    Excuse me! there is roughly a million residents of the UK who pay tax to the UK government but do not have citizenship, and so are not allowed to vote.

    I know, it is shameful.
    No it's not. It is the same in almost every other country in Europe and around the rest of the world.

    If you want to vote become a UK citizen. If you are not willing to show that sort of commitment then why should you get to decide in the future of the country.
    Because we already give away the vote to Commonwealth and Irish citizens.
    Better to get rid of that, if someone wants to vote in a UK election then they should be a citizen of the UK. I felt like a complete idiot telling my partner of 7 years that she couldn't vote but some random Indian getting off a plane to do a dodgy language course could. Either foreigners can or can't vote, the halfway house that we have is stupid.
    It may have something to do with these 'foreigners' coming from countries that supplied soldiers and other support for us in various wars. The profits we made in 'commonwealth' countries through colonialism would be another factor.

    But yes I think the situation needs to be....er....rationalised. Let's restrict the vote to those born within the sound of Bow Bells. That would simplify matters, and enable the voice of us true indigenous people to be heard.
    I'm not sure that the Indians and other commonwealth citizens arriving in t UK today had anything to do with that.
    No, and I didn't fight the Germans either but my father and grandfather did. So?
    Which is why you and I bear little animosity towards modern Germany. Times have moved on and our voting rights should move with them.
    Speak for yourself.

    There are aspects of 'modern' Germany I loathe. Weren't they protesting about those nasty Jews in Berlin recently? And then there are aspects I like, such as their positive attitude towards European integration.

    Some things about this country I like and dislike too.

    I'll speak for myself, thanks.
    So you're happy to judge a whole nation on the basis of a few disgusting Nazis in Berlin? How enlightened.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 15,540

    MaxPB said:

    I would, however, make an exception for the countries which still have the Queen as head of state. It seems fair that if we share the same head of state then we should allow them to vote.

    So do we have the right to vote in their elections? It shouldn't be one-way only.
    I doubt it, but if we're going to impose the Queen on them then giving a few thousand Aussies and Canucks the vote isn't a big deal.
  • justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    On topic, very interesting analysis from Mike. Two questions though:

    1. Why do the companies not weight for their undersampled groups? Even if robocalls hit fewer young / Democrat-inclined voters, presumably they must know this and ought to weight the responses accordingly? Clearly, some don't have their methodology and adjustments right - you simply don't get that kind of spread from sampling - but the question is who?

    2. To what extent is a shy-GOP vote operating here? Robocalls (I presume these are genuinely automated "press 1 for Republican" type methodologies) should be less susceptible to voters adjusting their answers according to what they perceive to be the socially acceptable response.

    I agree with the contention that the race is wide open. I also agree that turnout will be critical: there is a limit to the Democrat vote. Who would I be backing if I were to place money? Jones. It's a lot closer than the 70:30-ish split the odds imply. Indeed, having just checked the odds, I think I might place a bet.

    Several of the Robo callers now seek to reach under-sampled groups online. Others do have weightings to balance out the shortages in those groups but this is a bit like GE2015 and GE2017. Using past vote as indicator of likelihood to vote now might not be good indicator now.

    An issue with Alabama is that there's is very little polling experience there. It is a rock-solid Red state s there has never been the need.





    It is not so many years since it was a Dixie Democrat state - the era of George Wallace etc.
    Like much of the South it flipped when the Democrats decided to oppose racism.

    It's unlikely to be forgiven lightly.
    It went Republican at Presidential elections as far back as 1964 when it supported Goldwater.The switch at Senatorial and Congressional elections was quite a bit later.
    The vote for Goldwater was above all a vote against Johnson. Alabama didn't move solidly into the Red column at a presidential level until 1988. It backed Carter in 1976, Reagan by just 1.3% in 1980 and Reagan again by 22% in 1984: exactly the same as his national winning margin that year. Only in 1988, when Bush won by 19% in Alabama against a national lead of 8%, did it become a Red state, as such.
  • Scott_P said:

    @DPJHodges: Guardian: "Corbyn’s team believe Labour’s general election strategy of appealing to both leavers and remainers worked well and that spelling out a more specific position now would risk alienating key groups". Told you Remainers. He mugged you good and proper.

    THIS IS NEW NEWS
  • MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    I would, however, make an exception for the countries which still have the Queen as head of state. It seems fair that if we share the same head of state then we should allow them to vote.

    So do we have the right to vote in their elections? It shouldn't be one-way only.
    I doubt it, but if we're going to impose the Queen on them then giving a few thousand Aussies and Canucks the vote isn't a big deal.
    The Aussies chose to stick with the Queen in their 1999 referendum. We are the ones who have an unelected Head of State imposed on them - not the Aussies!
  • Cathy Newman in Telegraph: "If #MeToo has changed the world, why is Donald Trump still in office?"

    Good question.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 5,374

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    On topic, very interesting analysis from Mike. Two questions though:

    1. Why do the companies not weight for their undersampled groups? Even if robocalls hit fewer young / Democrat-inclined voters, presumably they must know this and ought to weight the responses accordingly? Clearly, some don't have their methodology and adjustments right - you simply don't get that kind of spread from sampling - but the question is who?

    2. To what extent is a shy-GOP vote operating here? Robocalls (I presume these are genuinely automated "press 1 for Republican" type methodologies) should be less susceptible to voters adjusting their answers according to what they perceive to be the socially acceptable response.

    I agree with the contention that the race is wide open. I also agree that turnout will be critical: there is a limit to the Democrat vote. Who would I be backing if I were to place money? Jones. It's a lot closer than the 70:30-ish split the odds imply. Indeed, having just checked the odds, I think I might place a bet.

    Several of the Robo callers now seek to reach under-sampled groups online. Others do have weightings to balance out the shortages in those groups but this is a bit like GE2015 and GE2017. Using past vote as indicator of likelihood to vote now might not be good indicator now.

    An issue with Alabama is that there's is very little polling experience there. It is a rock-solid Red state s there has never been the need.





    It is not so many years since it was a Dixie Democrat state - the era of George Wallace etc.
    Like much of the South it flipped when the Democrats decided to oppose racism.

    It's unlikely to be forgiven lightly.
    It went Republican at Presidential elections as far back as 1964 when it supported Goldwater.The switch at Senatorial and Congressional elections was quite a bit later.
    The vote for Goldwater was above all a vote against Johnson. Alabama didn't move solidly into the Red column at a presidential level until 1988. It backed Carter in 1976, Reagan by just 1.3% in 1980 and Reagan again by 22% in 1984: exactly the same as his national winning margin that year. Only in 1988, when Bush won by 19% in Alabama against a national lead of 8%, did it become a Red state, as such.
    Support for the Democrats in Alabama in 1976 and 1980 was bolstered by the fact of Carter being a Southerner from Georgia. Any other Democratic candidate would have been defeated decisively.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 33,587

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    I would, however, make an exception for the countries which still have the Queen as head of state. It seems fair that if we share the same head of state then we should allow them to vote.

    So do we have the right to vote in their elections? It shouldn't be one-way only.
    I doubt it, but if we're going to impose the Queen on them then giving a few thousand Aussies and Canucks the vote isn't a big deal.
    The Aussies chose to stick with the Queen in their 1999 referendum. We are the ones who have an unelected Head of State imposed on them - not the Aussies!
    Parties are free to go republican or offer a referendum on the matter if they want. That the ones we have elected do not do so means people must be content on that point, therefore it is not imposed on us.
  • Lib Dem surge
    twitter.com/joswinson/status/940557240574140416

    Next year's christmas do they will need now need two taxis instead of one.
  • MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    eristdoof said:


    No taxation without representation.

    Excuse me! there is roughly a million residents of the UK who pay tax to the UK government but do not have citizenship, and so are not allowed to vote.

    I know, it is shameful.
    No it's not. It is the same in almost every other country in Europe and around the rest of the world.

    If you want to vote become a UK citizen. If you are not willing to show that sort of commitment then why should you get to decide in the future of the country.
    Because we already give away the vote to Commonwealth and Irish citizens.
    Better to get rid of that, if someone wants to vote in a UK election then they should be a citizen of the UK. I felt like a complete idiot telling my partner of 7 years that she couldn't vote but some random Indian getting off a plane to do a dodgy language course could. Either foreigners can or can't vote, the halfway house that we have is stupid.
    It may have something to do with these 'foreigners' coming from countries that supplied soldiers and other support for us in various wars. The profits we made in 'commonwealth' countries through colonialism would be another factor.

    But yes I think the situation needs to be....er....rationalised. Let's restrict the vote to those born within the sound of Bow Bells. That would simplify matters, and enable the voice of us true indigenous people to be heard.
    I'm not sure that the Indians and other commonwealth citizens arriving in t UK today had anything to do with that.
    No, and I didn't fight the Germans either but my father and grandfather did. So?
    Which is why you and I bear little animosity towards modern Germany. Times have moved on and our voting rights should move with them.
    Speak for yourself.

    There are aspects of 'modern' Germany I loathe. Weren't they protesting about those nasty Jews in Berlin recently? And then there are aspects I like, such as their positive attitude towards European integration.

    Some things about this country I like and dislike too.

    I'll speak for myself, thanks.
    So you're happy to judge a whole nation on the basis of a few disgusting Nazis in Berlin? How enlightened.
    No, and your conclusion is inconsistent with what I wrote.
  • Cathy Newman in Telegraph: "If #MeToo has changed the world, why is Donald Trump still in office?"

    Good question.

    CNN asked the question this morning and the host actually made a good point. All the allegations against trump were made before the public voted him in as president.
  • kle4 said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    I would, however, make an exception for the countries which still have the Queen as head of state. It seems fair that if we share the same head of state then we should allow them to vote.

    So do we have the right to vote in their elections? It shouldn't be one-way only.
    I doubt it, but if we're going to impose the Queen on them then giving a few thousand Aussies and Canucks the vote isn't a big deal.
    The Aussies chose to stick with the Queen in their 1999 referendum. We are the ones who have an unelected Head of State imposed on them - not the Aussies!
    Parties are free to go republican or offer a referendum on the matter if they want. That the ones we have elected do not do so means people must be content on that point, therefore it is not imposed on us.
    Establishment stitch up - even Jezza is a member of the Privvy* Council!

    *Typo is intentional
  • MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    I would, however, make an exception for the countries which still have the Queen as head of state. It seems fair that if we share the same head of state then we should allow them to vote.

    So do we have the right to vote in their elections? It shouldn't be one-way only.
    I doubt it, but if we're going to impose the Queen on them then giving a few thousand Aussies and Canucks the vote isn't a big deal.
    Who's imposing the Queen on anyone? Australia in particular can have no complaint on that score having had a referendum on the matter. But each country is free to choose its own model of government.

    As an aside, there are about 135k Australian-born UK residents and 95k from Canada, going by the latest ONS data. The top 10 countries are:

    Poland 907
    India 809
    Pakistan 523
    Republic of Ireland 398
    Romania 340
    Germany 299
    Bangladesh 247
    South Africa 245
    China 226
    Italy 220
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 45,981

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    I would, however, make an exception for the countries which still have the Queen as head of state. It seems fair that if we share the same head of state then we should allow them to vote.

    So do we have the right to vote in their elections? It shouldn't be one-way only.
    I doubt it, but if we're going to impose the Queen on them then giving a few thousand Aussies and Canucks the vote isn't a big deal.
    The Aussies chose to stick with the Queen in their 1999 referendum. We are the ones who have an unelected Head of State imposed on them - not the Aussies!
    68% of Britains back the monarchy

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/09/08/monarchy-here-stay/
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 19,723
    Scott_P said:

    @DPJHodges: Guardian: "Corbyn’s team believe Labour’s general election strategy of appealing to both leavers and remainers worked well and that spelling out a more specific position now would risk alienating key groups". Told you Remainers. He mugged you good and proper.

    Corbyn 2017: All Things To All Men

    Corbyn 2018: Nothing to Anyone Anymore.....
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 33,587
    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    I would, however, make an exception for the countries which still have the Queen as head of state. It seems fair that if we share the same head of state then we should allow them to vote.

    So do we have the right to vote in their elections? It shouldn't be one-way only.
    I doubt it, but if we're going to impose the Queen on them then giving a few thousand Aussies and Canucks the vote isn't a big deal.
    The Aussies chose to stick with the Queen in their 1999 referendum. We are the ones who have an unelected Head of State imposed on them - not the Aussies!
    68% of Britains back the monarchy

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/09/08/monarchy-here-stay/
    For now.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 45,981

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    On topic, very interesting analysis from Mike. Two questions though:

    1. Why do the companies not weight for their undersampled groups? Even if robocalls hit fewer young / Democrat-inclined voters, presumably they must know this and ought to weight the responses accordingly? Clearly, some don't have their methodology and adjustments right - you simply don't get that kind of spread from sampling - but the question is who?

    2. To what extent is a shy-GOP vote operating here? Robocalls (I presume these are genuinely automated "press 1 for Republican" type methodologies) should be less susceptible to voters adjusting their answers according to what they perceive to be the socially acceptable response.

    I agree with the contention that the race is wide open. I also agree that turnout will be critical: there is a limit to the Democrat vote. Who would I be backing if I were to place money? Jones. It's a lot closer than the 70:30-ish split the odds imply. Indeed, having just checked the odds, I think I might place a bet.

    Several of the Robo callers now seek to reach under-sampled groups online. Others do have weightings to balance out the shortages in those groups but this is a bit like GE2015 and GE2017. Using past vote as indicator of likelihood to vote now might not be good indicator now.

    An issue with Alabama is that there's is very little polling experience there. It is a rock-solid Red state s there has never been the need.





    It is not so many years since it was a Dixie Democrat state - the era of George Wallace etc.
    Like much of the South it flipped when the Democrats decided to oppose racism.

    It's unlikely to be forgiven lightly.
    It went Republican at Presidential elections as far back as 1964 when it supported Goldwater.The switch at Senatorial and Congressional elections was quite a bit later.
    The vote for Goldwater was above all a vote against Johnson. Alabama didn't move solidly into the Red column at a presidential level until 1988. It backed Carter in 1976, Reagan by just 1.3% in 1980 and Reagan again by 22% in 1984: exactly the same as his national winning margin that year. Only in 1988, when Bush won by 19% in Alabama against a national lead of 8%, did it become a Red state, as such.
    Johnson was the last Democratic presidential candidate to win the US white male vote
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 33,587
    edited December 2017

    Scott_P said:

    @DPJHodges: Guardian: "Corbyn’s team believe Labour’s general election strategy of appealing to both leavers and remainers worked well and that spelling out a more specific position now would risk alienating key groups". Told you Remainers. He mugged you good and proper.

    Corbyn 2017: All Things To All Men

    Corbyn 2018: Nothing to Anyone Anymore.....
    Sounds optimistic - I think he can keep it going a few more years at least. Enough to win? Depends on opponent crapness and voter government fatigue.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 45,981

    ICM

    CON: 42% (+1)
    LAB: 40% (-1)
    LDEM: 8% (+1)
    UKIP: 5% (-)
    GRN: 2% (-1)

    Fieldwork 08 - 10 Dec

    That poll would see the LDs pick up 2 Tory seats but Labour pick up no Tory seats at all
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 68,878
    edited December 2017
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    I would, however, make an exception for the countries which still have the Queen as head of state. It seems fair that if we share the same head of state then we should allow them to vote.

    So do we have the right to vote in their elections? It shouldn't be one-way only.
    I doubt it, but if we're going to impose the Queen on them then giving a few thousand Aussies and Canucks the vote isn't a big deal.
    The Aussies chose to stick with the Queen in their 1999 referendum. We are the ones who have an unelected Head of State imposed on them - not the Aussies!
    68% of Britains back the monarchy

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/09/08/monarchy-here-stay/
    For now.
    A few years with Charles on the throne and it’ll be like 1649 all over again.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 19,723
    edited December 2017
    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:

    @DPJHodges: Guardian: "Corbyn’s team believe Labour’s general election strategy of appealing to both leavers and remainers worked well and that spelling out a more specific position now would risk alienating key groups". Told you Remainers. He mugged you good and proper.

    Corbyn 2017: All Things To All Men

    Corbyn 2018: Nothing to Anyone Anymore.....
    Sounds optimistic - I think he can keep it going a few more years at least. Enough to win? Depends on opponent crapness and voter government fatigue.
    Nah - when he's not PM at Christmas, he will have committed the cardinal sin: he lied to Glastonbury.

    He's going downhill faster than a fat bloke on a toboggan....
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 20,554
    edited December 2017
    Why is there an exclaimation mark?

    "Baby on board" would be informative

    "Baby on Board" might raise corporate governance questions

    "Baby on board!" reads as "I'm not fat, I'm pregnant! So there!"
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 45,981
    edited December 2017

    Tories the party of the working classes like me,

    Tory lead of 5% with the C2DEs.

    Labour 2% ahead with ABC1s.

    We truly live on Bizarro world.

    Tories are almost certainly still ahead with ABs but Labour ahead with C1s. At the general election Yougov had the Tories 8% ahead with ABs but Labour 2% ahead with C1s.

    Yougov also had Labour 2% ahead with DEs but Tories 7% ahead with C2s, so Labour still likely ahead with DEs
    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/06/13/how-britain-voted-2017-general-election/
  • Scott_P said:

    @DPJHodges: Guardian: "Corbyn’s team believe Labour’s general election strategy of appealing to both leavers and remainers worked well and that spelling out a more specific position now would risk alienating key groups". Told you Remainers. He mugged you good and proper.

    Corbyn 2017: All Things To All Men

    Corbyn 2018: Nothing to Anyone Anymore.....
    Nah you can maintain being all things to all men until you're forced to take a stand - and you only need to do that once in government and by that point its too late for the electorate to do anything until the next election.

    Hence:
    Lib Dems 01 May 2010: All Things To All Men

    Lib Dems 31 May 2010: Nothing to Anyone Anymore.....
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 20,554

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    I would, however, make an exception for the countries which still have the Queen as head of state. It seems fair that if we share the same head of state then we should allow them to vote.

    So do we have the right to vote in their elections? It shouldn't be one-way only.
    I doubt it, but if we're going to impose the Queen on them then giving a few thousand Aussies and Canucks the vote isn't a big deal.
    The Aussies chose to stick with the Queen in their 1999 referendum. We are the ones who have an unelected Head of State imposed on them - not the Aussies!
    68% of Britains back the monarchy

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/09/08/monarchy-here-stay/
    For now.
    A few years with Charles on the throne and it’ll be like 1649 all over again.
    I doubt he will be beheaded no matter how bad he is.
  • justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    On topic, very interesting analysis from Mike. Two questions though:

    I agree with the contention that the race is wide open. I also agree that turnout will be critical: there is a limit to the Democrat vote. Who would I be backing if I were to place money? Jones. It's a lot closer than the 70:30-ish split the odds imply. Indeed, having just checked the odds, I think I might place a bet.

    Several of the Robo callers now seek to reach under-sampled groups online. Others do have weightings to balance out the shortages in those groups but this is a bit like GE2015 and GE2017. Using past vote as indicator of likelihood to vote now might not be good indicator now.

    An issue with Alabama is that there's is very little polling experience there. It is a rock-solid Red state s there has never been the need.
    It is not so many years since it was a Dixie Democrat state - the era of George Wallace etc.
    Like much of the South it flipped when the Democrats decided to oppose racism.

    It's unlikely to be forgiven lightly.
    It went Republican at Presidential elections as far back as 1964 when it supported Goldwater.The switch at Senatorial and Congressional elections was quite a bit later.
    The vote for Goldwater was above all a vote against Johnson. Alabama didn't move solidly into the Red column at a presidential level until 1988. It backed Carter in 1976, Reagan by just 1.3% in 1980 and Reagan again by 22% in 1984: exactly the same as his national winning margin that year. Only in 1988, when Bush won by 19% in Alabama against a national lead of 8%, did it become a Red state, as such.
    Support for the Democrats in Alabama in 1976 and 1980 was bolstered by the fact of Carter being a Southerner from Georgia. Any other Democratic candidate would have been defeated decisively.
    Do you have any evidence for that? As I said earlier, Reagan in 1984 only won by the same margin in Alabama as he did nationally. On a state level, Democrats won the 1982 gubernatorial election (with George Wallace, admittedly), and came close in most others during the 1980s and 1990s, before winning again in 1998 and then losing by only 0.2% in 2002. Similarly, Democrats held lesser state roles right through the 1980s, with the GOP not gaining a stranglehold on them until 2011.

    All the evidence suggests that Alabama remained a Blue-leaning state in the late 1970s, if nowhere near as unthinkingly so as it was 20 years earlier.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 45,981

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    I would, however, make an exception for the countries which still have the Queen as head of state. It seems fair that if we share the same head of state then we should allow them to vote.

    So do we have the right to vote in their elections? It shouldn't be one-way only.
    I doubt it, but if we're going to impose the Queen on them then giving a few thousand Aussies and Canucks the vote isn't a big deal.
    The Aussies chose to stick with the Queen in their 1999 referendum. We are the ones who have an unelected Head of State imposed on them - not the Aussies!
    68% of Britains back the monarchy

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/09/08/monarchy-here-stay/
    For now.
    A few years with Charles on the throne and it’ll be like 1649 all over again.
    No, even young people like William and Kate and Harry and Meghan. Charles is still popular with pensioners and as he is a pensioner he will only live as long as them
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 5,374
    HYUFD said:

    ICM

    CON: 42% (+1)
    LAB: 40% (-1)
    LDEM: 8% (+1)
    UKIP: 5% (-)
    GRN: 2% (-1)

    Fieldwork 08 - 10 Dec

    That poll would see the LDs pick up 2 Tory seats but Labour pick up no Tory seats at all
    Labour would actually gain Southampton Itchen on those figures.
  • Charles said:

    I doubt he will be beheaded no matter how bad he is.

    An adulterer and divorcee as Supreme Governor of The Church of England, that way madness lies.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 20,554
    edited December 2017

    Charles said:

    I doubt he will be beheaded no matter how bad he is.

    An adulterer and divorcee as Supreme Governor of The Church of England, that way madness lies.
    In line with precedent
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 45,981
    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    ICM

    CON: 42% (+1)
    LAB: 40% (-1)
    LDEM: 8% (+1)
    UKIP: 5% (-)
    GRN: 2% (-1)

    Fieldwork 08 - 10 Dec

    That poll would see the LDs pick up 2 Tory seats but Labour pick up no Tory seats at all
    Labour would actually gain Southampton Itchen on those figures.
    Debatable given the 2% Tory lead is basically exactly the same as June
  • Charles said:

    Charles said:

    I doubt he will be beheaded no matter how bad he is.

    An adulterer and divorcee as Supreme Governor of The Church of England, that way madness lies.
    Are you really in a position to criticise those failings?
    I'm not planning on being Supreme Governor of The Church of England in the next few years, or ever.

    It is a looming constitutional nightmare, plus I suspect a lot of people won't be he happy with Queen Camilla, which is another mess.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 18,298
    Shine beginning to come off Corybn - we will see how deep and sticky his support actually is quite soon.

  • Scott_P said:

    @DPJHodges: Guardian: "Corbyn’s team believe Labour’s general election strategy of appealing to both leavers and remainers worked well and that spelling out a more specific position now would risk alienating key groups". Told you Remainers. He mugged you good and proper.

    Corbyn 2017: All Things To All Men

    Corbyn 2018: Nothing to Anyone Anymore.....
    Nah you can maintain being all things to all men until you're forced to take a stand - and you only need to do that once in government and by that point its too late for the electorate to do anything until the next election.

    Hence:
    Lib Dems 01 May 2010: All Things To All Men

    Lib Dems 31 May 2010: Nothing to Anyone Anymore.....
    The LDs simply aren't trusted by anyone.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 20,554

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    I doubt he will be beheaded no matter how bad he is.

    An adulterer and divorcee as Supreme Governor of The Church of England, that way madness lies.
    Are you really in a position to criticise those failings?
    I'm not planning on being Supreme Governor of The Church of England in the next few years, or ever.

    It is a looming constitutional nightmare, plus I suspect a lot of people won't be he happy with Queen Camilla, which is another mess.
    Camilla's not going to be Queen.

    She will remain Duchess of Cornwall.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morganatic_marriage
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 5,374

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    On topic, very interesting analysis from Mike. Two questions though:

    I agree with the contention that the race is wide open. I also agree that turnout will be critical: there is a limit to the Democrat vote. Who would I be backing if I were to place money? Jones. It's a lot closer than the 70:30-ish split the odds imply. Indeed, having just checked the odds, I think I might place a bet.

    Several of the Robo callers now seek to reach under-sampled groups online. Others do have weightings to balance out the shortages in those groups but this is a bit like GE2015 and GE2017. Using past vote as indicator of likelihood to vote now might not be good indicator now.

    An issue with Alabama is that there's is very little polling experience there. It is a rock-solid Red state s there has never been the need.
    It is not so many years since it was a Dixie Democrat state - the era of George Wallace etc.
    Like much of the South it flipped when the Democrats decided to oppose racism.

    It's unlikely to be forgiven lightly.
    It went Republican at Presidential elections as far back as 1964 when it supported Goldwater.The switch at Senatorial and Congressional elections was quite a bit later.
    .
    Support for the Democrats in Alabama in 1976 and 1980 was bolstered by the fact of Carter being a Southerner from Georgia. Any other Democratic candidate would have been defeated decisively.
    Do you have any evidence for that? As I said earlier, Reagan in 1984 only won by the same margin in Alabama as he did nationally. On a state level, Democrats won the 1982 gubernatorial election (with George Wallace, admittedly), and came close in most others during the 1980s and 1990s, before winning again in 1998 and then losing by only 0.2% in 2002. Similarly, Democrats held lesser state roles right through the 1980s, with the GOP not gaining a stranglehold on them until 2011.

    All the evidence suggests that Alabama remained a Blue-leaning state in the late 1970s, if nowhere near as unthinkingly so as it was 20 years earlier.
    Carter carried all of the Deep South in 1976 reflecting regional pride at the prospect of a Southerner winning the White House for the first time since the Civil War. There was no way that other possible Democrat candidates that year such as Humphrey, Mondale or Udall would have done that.After Goldwater's success in 1964 , much of the region went for George Wallace in 1968 and heavily for Nixon in 1972.
  • HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    ICM

    CON: 42% (+1)
    LAB: 40% (-1)
    LDEM: 8% (+1)
    UKIP: 5% (-)
    GRN: 2% (-1)

    Fieldwork 08 - 10 Dec

    That poll would see the LDs pick up 2 Tory seats but Labour pick up no Tory seats at all
    Labour would actually gain Southampton Itchen on those figures.
    Debatable given the 2% Tory lead is basically exactly the same as June
    This poll represents a 0.25% swing from Con to Labour, Itchen falls on a 0.03% swing, so not much debate there.
  • Charles said:

    Why is there an exclaimation mark?

    "Baby on board" would be informative

    "Baby on Board" might raise corporate governance questions

    "Baby on board!" reads as "I'm not fat, I'm pregnant! So there!"
    It means: "don't bump into me and offer me your seat, you arse!"
  • kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    I would, however, make an exception for the countries which still have the Queen as head of state. It seems fair that if we share the same head of state then we should allow them to vote.

    So do we have the right to vote in their elections? It shouldn't be one-way only.
    I doubt it, but if we're going to impose the Queen on them then giving a few thousand Aussies and Canucks the vote isn't a big deal.
    The Aussies chose to stick with the Queen in their 1999 referendum. We are the ones who have an unelected Head of State imposed on them - not the Aussies!
    68% of Britains back the monarchy

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/09/08/monarchy-here-stay/
    For now.
    A few years with Charles on the throne and it’ll be like 1649 all over again.
    I don't think Charles can help himself.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 5,374
    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    ICM

    CON: 42% (+1)
    LAB: 40% (-1)
    LDEM: 8% (+1)
    UKIP: 5% (-)
    GRN: 2% (-1)

    Fieldwork 08 - 10 Dec

    That poll would see the LDs pick up 2 Tory seats but Labour pick up no Tory seats at all
    Labour would actually gain Southampton Itchen on those figures.
    Debatable given the 2% Tory lead is basically exactly the same as June
    The Tory lead was 2.4% in June.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 20,554

    Charles said:

    Why is there an exclamation mark?

    "Baby on board" would be informative

    "Baby on Board" might raise corporate governance questions

    "Baby on board!" reads as "I'm not fat, I'm pregnant! So there!"
    It means: "don't bump into me and offer me your seat, you arse!"
    And that's my issue. The 'informative version' - without the exclamation mark - would convey the same request, but without the vitriol
  • Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    I doubt he will be beheaded no matter how bad he is.

    An adulterer and divorcee as Supreme Governor of The Church of England, that way madness lies.
    Are you really in a position to criticise those failings?
    I'm not planning on being Supreme Governor of The Church of England in the next few years, or ever.

    It is a looming constitutional nightmare, plus I suspect a lot of people won't be he happy with Queen Camilla, which is another mess.
    Camilla's not going to be Queen.

    She will remain Duchess of Cornwall.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morganatic_marriage
    There's was not a Morganatic marriage.

    Camilla is also Princess of Wales.

    Ergo on the ascension of Charles, she will become Queen.

    Department for Constitutional Affairs that she would become Queen when Charles succeeds to the throne.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4369217.stm
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 20,554
    edited December 2017

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    I doubt he will be beheaded no matter how bad he is.

    An adulterer and divorcee as Supreme Governor of The Church of England, that way madness lies.
    Are you really in a position to criticise those failings?
    I'm not planning on being Supreme Governor of The Church of England in the next few years, or ever.

    It is a looming constitutional nightmare, plus I suspect a lot of people won't be he happy with Queen Camilla, which is another mess.
    Camilla's not going to be Queen.

    She will remain Duchess of Cornwall.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morganatic_marriage
    There's was not a Morganatic marriage.

    Camilla is also Princess of Wales.

    Ergo on the ascension of Charles, she will become Queen.

    Department for Constitutional Affairs that she would become Queen when Charles succeeds to the throne.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4369217.stm
    She's not going to be called Queen, though.

    In any event, Charles is just following precedent.
  • Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    I doubt he will be beheaded no matter how bad he is.

    An adulterer and divorcee as Supreme Governor of The Church of England, that way madness lies.
    Are you really in a position to criticise those failings?
    I'm not planning on being Supreme Governor of The Church of England in the next few years, or ever.

    It is a looming constitutional nightmare, plus I suspect a lot of people won't be he happy with Queen Camilla, which is another mess.
    Camilla's not going to be Queen.

    She will remain Duchess of Cornwall.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morganatic_marriage
    There's was not a Morganatic marriage.

    Camilla is also Princess of Wales.

    Ergo on the ascension of Charles, she will become Queen.

    Department for Constitutional Affairs that she would become Queen when Charles succeeds to the throne.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4369217.stm
    She's not going to be called Queen, though.

    In any event, Charles is just following precedent.
    She will be Queen. But everyone will agree to not call her Queen.
  • Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Why is there an exclamation mark?

    "Baby on board" would be informative

    "Baby on Board" might raise corporate governance questions

    "Baby on board!" reads as "I'm not fat, I'm pregnant! So there!"
    It means: "don't bump into me and offer me your seat, you arse!"
    And that's my issue. The 'informative version' - without the exclamation mark - would convey the same request, but without the vitriol
    Doesn't bother me, to be honest.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 23,409
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    I doubt he will be beheaded no matter how bad he is.

    An adulterer and divorcee as Supreme Governor of The Church of England, that way madness lies.
    Are you really in a position to criticise those failings?
    I'm not planning on being Supreme Governor of The Church of England in the next few years, or ever.

    It is a looming constitutional nightmare, plus I suspect a lot of people won't be he happy with Queen Camilla, which is another mess.
    Camilla's not going to be Queen.

    She will remain Duchess of Cornwall.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morganatic_marriage
    There's was not a Morganatic marriage.

    Camilla is also Princess of Wales.

    Ergo on the ascension of Charles, she will become Queen.

    Department for Constitutional Affairs that she would become Queen when Charles succeeds to the throne.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4369217.stm
    She's not going to be called Queen, though.

    In any event, Charles is just following precedent.
    Although if he's not careful, it will be a president following him...
  • HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    I would, however, make an exception for the countries which still have the Queen as head of state. It seems fair that if we share the same head of state then we should allow them to vote.

    So do we have the right to vote in their elections? It shouldn't be one-way only.
    I doubt it, but if we're going to impose the Queen on them then giving a few thousand Aussies and Canucks the vote isn't a big deal.
    The Aussies chose to stick with the Queen in their 1999 referendum. We are the ones who have an unelected Head of State imposed on them - not the Aussies!
    68% of Britains back the monarchy

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/09/08/monarchy-here-stay/
    So the Monarchists should have nothing to fear by calling a referendum to settle the matter for a generation (preferably a year or so after Charles takes over!).
  • Charles said:

    Why is there an exclaimation mark?

    "Baby on board" would be informative

    "Baby on Board" might raise corporate governance questions

    "Baby on board!" reads as "I'm not fat, I'm pregnant! So there!"
    It means: "don't bump into me and offer me your seat, you arse!"
    In all seriousness though, Casino, can you or anybody else explain the point of these stickers on the windows of cars?
  • HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    I would, however, make an exception for the countries which still have the Queen as head of state. It seems fair that if we share the same head of state then we should allow them to vote.

    So do we have the right to vote in their elections? It shouldn't be one-way only.
    I doubt it, but if we're going to impose the Queen on them then giving a few thousand Aussies and Canucks the vote isn't a big deal.
    The Aussies chose to stick with the Queen in their 1999 referendum. We are the ones who have an unelected Head of State imposed on them - not the Aussies!
    68% of Britains back the monarchy

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/09/08/monarchy-here-stay/
    For now.
    A few years with Charles on the throne and it’ll be like 1649 all over again.
    No, even young people like William and Kate and Harry and Meghan. Charles is still popular with pensioners and as he is a pensioner he will only live as long as them
    The Monarchy remains well-supported because it plays a popular and important role in the constitutional life of the nation.

    But, there are rules.

    It will only become unpopular when one of the incumbents breaks those rules.
  • Charles said:

    Why is there an exclaimation mark?

    "Baby on board" would be informative

    "Baby on Board" might raise corporate governance questions

    "Baby on board!" reads as "I'm not fat, I'm pregnant! So there!"
    It means: "don't bump into me and offer me your seat, you arse!"
    In all seriousness though, Casino, can you or anybody else explain the point of these stickers on the windows of cars?
    Yes, they were originally designed so rescue services would know if there were babies/children on board in the event of a serious accident and the driver was unable to tell them.
  • Charles said:

    Charles said:

    I doubt he will be beheaded no matter how bad he is.

    An adulterer and divorcee as Supreme Governor of The Church of England, that way madness lies.
    Are you really in a position to criticise those failings?
    I'm not planning on being Supreme Governor of The Church of England in the next few years, or ever.

    It is a looming constitutional nightmare, plus I suspect a lot of people won't be he happy with Queen Camilla, which is another mess.
    It's a titular position though isn't it? It's not as if he'll have to run anything or preach from the pulpit. As for Camilla - a few Diana-fetish oddballs aside - I doubt anyone will give a fig.
  • Charles said:

    Why is there an exclaimation mark?

    "Baby on board" would be informative

    "Baby on Board" might raise corporate governance questions

    "Baby on board!" reads as "I'm not fat, I'm pregnant! So there!"
    It means: "don't bump into me and offer me your seat, you arse!"
    In all seriousness though, Casino, can you or anybody else explain the point of these stickers on the windows of cars?
    You can get one for a 2-seater sports car saying "Baby on Hold".
  • justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:



    Several of the Robo callers now seek to reach under-sampled groups online. Others do have weightings to balance out the shortages in those groups but this is a bit like GE2015 and GE2017. Using past vote as indicator of likelihood to vote now might not be good indicator now.

    An issue with Alabama is that there's is very little polling experience there. It is a rock-solid Red state s there has never been the need.

    It is not so many years since it was a Dixie Democrat state - the era of George Wallace etc.
    Like much of the South it flipped when the Democrats decided to oppose racism.

    It's unlikely to be forgiven lightly.
    It went Republican at Presidential elections as far back as 1964 when it supported Goldwater.The switch at Senatorial and Congressional elections was quite a bit later.
    .
    Support for the Democrats in Alabama in 1976 and 1980 was bolstered by the fact of Carter being a Southerner from Georgia. Any other Democratic candidate would have been defeated decisively.
    Do you have any evidence for that? As I said earlier, Reagan in 1984 only won by the same margin in Alabama as he did nationally. On a state level, Democrats won the 1982 gubernatorial election (with George Wallace, admittedly), and came close in most others during the 1980s and 1990s, before winning again in 1998 and then losing by only 0.2% in 2002. Similarly, Democrats held lesser state roles right through the 1980s, with the GOP not gaining a stranglehold on them until 2011.

    All the evidence suggests that Alabama remained a Blue-leaning state in the late 1970s, if nowhere near as unthinkingly so as it was 20 years earlier.
    Carter carried all of the Deep South in 1976 reflecting regional pride at the prospect of a Southerner winning the White House for the first time since the Civil War. There was no way that other possible Democrat candidates that year such as Humphrey, Mondale or Udall would have done that.After Goldwater's success in 1964 , much of the region went for George Wallace in 1968 and heavily for Nixon in 1972.
    You are countering my facts with your opinion. Any chance of any evidence to back up that opinion?

    (As an aside, Carter wasn't the first Southerner to win the White House since the Civil War - Truman got there first, as, arguably, did Eisenhower).
  • Charles said:

    Why is there an exclaimation mark?

    "Baby on board" would be informative

    "Baby on Board" might raise corporate governance questions

    "Baby on board!" reads as "I'm not fat, I'm pregnant! So there!"
    It means: "don't bump into me and offer me your seat, you arse!"
    In all seriousness though, Casino, can you or anybody else explain the point of these stickers on the windows of cars?
    Yes, they were originally designed so rescue services would know if there were babies/children on board in the event of a serious accident and the driver was unable to tell them.
    So presumably the ones saying "Little Princess on Board" are to alert the emergency services to potential Diana-like tragedies.
  • Charles said:

    Why is there an exclaimation mark?

    "Baby on board" would be informative

    "Baby on Board" might raise corporate governance questions

    "Baby on board!" reads as "I'm not fat, I'm pregnant! So there!"
    It means: "don't bump into me and offer me your seat, you arse!"
    In all seriousness though, Casino, can you or anybody else explain the point of these stickers on the windows of cars?
    You can get one for a 2-seater sports car saying "Baby on Hold".
    There has to be a market for joke parodies of the inane original.
  • Charles said:

    Charles said:

    I doubt he will be beheaded no matter how bad he is.

    An adulterer and divorcee as Supreme Governor of The Church of England, that way madness lies.
    Are you really in a position to criticise those failings?
    I'm not planning on being Supreme Governor of The Church of England in the next few years, or ever.

    It is a looming constitutional nightmare, plus I suspect a lot of people won't be he happy with Queen Camilla, which is another mess.
    It's a titular position though isn't it? It's not as if he'll have to run anything or preach from the pulpit. As for Camilla - a few Diana-fetish oddballs aside - I doubt anyone will give a fig.
    From the summer.

    27% want Camilla to be Queen consort

    36% want Camilla to be Princess consort

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4226442/prince-william-charles-next-king-camilla-parker-bowles/
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 7,629

    Charles said:

    I doubt he will be beheaded no matter how bad he is.

    An adulterer and divorcee as Supreme Governor of The Church of England, that way madness lies.
    Unthinkable. :smile:
  • Charles said:

    Why is there an exclaimation mark?

    "Baby on board" would be informative

    "Baby on Board" might raise corporate governance questions

    "Baby on board!" reads as "I'm not fat, I'm pregnant! So there!"
    It means: "don't bump into me and offer me your seat, you arse!"
    In all seriousness though, Casino, can you or anybody else explain the point of these stickers on the windows of cars?
    You can get one for a 2-seater sports car saying "Baby on Hold".
    There has to be a market for joke parodies of the inane original.
    There are, I was given one a few years ago.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 7,115
    edited December 2017
    Tories back in the lead now.

    Hopefully this will trigger Mrs May to call an election soon.
  • Scott_P said:

    @DPJHodges: Guardian: "Corbyn’s team believe Labour’s general election strategy of appealing to both leavers and remainers worked well and that spelling out a more specific position now would risk alienating key groups". Told you Remainers. He mugged you good and proper.

    Corbyn 2017: All Things To All Men

    Corbyn 2018: Nothing to Anyone Anymore.....
    Nah you can maintain being all things to all men until you're forced to take a stand - and you only need to do that once in government and by that point its too late for the electorate to do anything until the next election.

    Hence:
    Lib Dems 01 May 2010: All Things To All Men

    Lib Dems 31 May 2010: Nothing to Anyone Anymore.....
    The LDs simply aren't trusted by anyone.
    Which is karmic justice after spending decades trying to be both sides of the fence.
  • Charles said:

    Why is there an exclaimation mark?

    "Baby on board" would be informative

    "Baby on Board" might raise corporate governance questions

    "Baby on board!" reads as "I'm not fat, I'm pregnant! So there!"
    It means: "don't bump into me and offer me your seat, you arse!"
    In all seriousness though, Casino, can you or anybody else explain the point of these stickers on the windows of cars?
    Yes, they were originally designed so rescue services would know if there were babies/children on board in the event of a serious accident and the driver was unable to tell them.
    Yeah? Really?!

    {Goes off to punch self in face.}
  • Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    I doubt he will be beheaded no matter how bad he is.

    An adulterer and divorcee as Supreme Governor of The Church of England, that way madness lies.
    Are you really in a position to criticise those failings?
    I'm not planning on being Supreme Governor of The Church of England in the next few years, or ever.

    It is a looming constitutional nightmare, plus I suspect a lot of people won't be he happy with Queen Camilla, which is another mess.
    Camilla's not going to be Queen.

    She will remain Duchess of Cornwall.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morganatic_marriage
    There's was not a Morganatic marriage.

    Camilla is also Princess of Wales.

    Ergo on the ascension of Charles, she will become Queen.

    Department for Constitutional Affairs that she would become Queen when Charles succeeds to the throne.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4369217.stm
    She's not going to be called Queen, though.

    In any event, Charles is just following precedent.
    You don't know that. As and when Charles becomes king, there'll be little else she can be correctly called, unless he grants her a peerage in her own right (which might be the best option). Duchess of Portsmouth or Cleveland or something like that.
  • Charles said:

    Why is there an exclaimation mark?

    "Baby on board" would be informative

    "Baby on Board" might raise corporate governance questions

    "Baby on board!" reads as "I'm not fat, I'm pregnant! So there!"
    It means: "don't bump into me and offer me your seat, you arse!"
    In all seriousness though, Casino, can you or anybody else explain the point of these stickers on the windows of cars?

    "I've got a kid and I'm an ultra-nervous and unconfident driver.

    Please don't drive up my arse, honk your horn, or crash into me.

    Give me a wide berth, and leave me alone (except to coo over
    my kid if you do happen to see it, and we're safely stationery)."
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 30,258
    edited December 2017
    David Davis has damaged trust in UK, says Verhofstadt

    The former Belgian prime minister claimed the Brexit secretary’s comments over the weekend were “unacceptable”, and undermined confidence in the British government’s trustworthiness.

  • Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    I doubt he will be beheaded no matter how bad he is.

    An adulterer and divorcee as Supreme Governor of The Church of England, that way madness lies.
    Unthinkable. :smile:
    I think it is cool. Two derelict institutions discrediting themselves. Very helpful.
  • Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    I doubt he will be beheaded no matter how bad he is.

    An adulterer and divorcee as Supreme Governor of The Church of England, that way madness lies.
    Are you really in a position to criticise those failings?
    I'm not planning on being Supreme Governor of The Church of England in the next few years, or ever.

    It is a looming constitutional nightmare, plus I suspect a lot of people won't be he happy with Queen Camilla, which is another mess.
    Camilla's not going to be Queen.

    She will remain Duchess of Cornwall.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morganatic_marriage
    She can't. She holds that position as the wife of the Duke of Cornwall, which is a title that is always held by the eldest son of the monarch. When Charles becomes king, then he ceases to be Duke of Cornwall (and Rothsay, on the same basis), and, in consequence, she ceases to be Duchess.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 20,554

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    I doubt he will be beheaded no matter how bad he is.

    An adulterer and divorcee as Supreme Governor of The Church of England, that way madness lies.
    Are you really in a position to criticise those failings?
    I'm not planning on being Supreme Governor of The Church of England in the next few years, or ever.

    It is a looming constitutional nightmare, plus I suspect a lot of people won't be he happy with Queen Camilla, which is another mess.
    Camilla's not going to be Queen.

    She will remain Duchess of Cornwall.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morganatic_marriage
    There's was not a Morganatic marriage.

    Camilla is also Princess of Wales.

    Ergo on the ascension of Charles, she will become Queen.

    Department for Constitutional Affairs that she would become Queen when Charles succeeds to the throne.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4369217.stm
    She's not going to be called Queen, though.

    In any event, Charles is just following precedent.
    You don't know that. As and when Charles becomes king, there'll be little else she can be correctly called, unless he grants her a peerage in her own right (which might be the best option). Duchess of Portsmouth or Cleveland or something like that.
    At the time of her marriage it was stated she would be Princess Consort.
  • Charles said:

    Why is there an exclaimation mark?

    "Baby on board" would be informative

    "Baby on Board" might raise corporate governance questions

    "Baby on board!" reads as "I'm not fat, I'm pregnant! So there!"
    It means: "don't bump into me and offer me your seat, you arse!"
    In all seriousness though, Casino, can you or anybody else explain the point of these stickers on the windows of cars?

    "I've got a kid and I'm an ultra-nervous and unconfident driver.

    Please don't drive up my arse, honk your horn, or crash into me.

    Give me a wide berth, and leave me alone (except to coo over
    my kid if you do happen to see it, and we're safely stationery)."
    Well it may work indirectly, I suppose. I give such drivers a wide berth on the grounds they are deranged.
  • HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    I would, however, make an exception for the countries which still have the Queen as head of state. It seems fair that if we share the same head of state then we should allow them to vote.

    So do we have the right to vote in their elections? It shouldn't be one-way only.
    I doubt it, but if we're going to impose the Queen on them then giving a few thousand Aussies and Canucks the vote isn't a big deal.
    The Aussies chose to stick with the Queen in their 1999 referendum. We are the ones who have an unelected Head of State imposed on them - not the Aussies!
    68% of Britains back the monarchy

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/09/08/monarchy-here-stay/
    So the Monarchists should have nothing to fear by calling a referendum to settle the matter for a generation (preferably a year or so after Charles takes over!).
    If there was public demand for one, yes. But, a referendum because the 15-20% or so of the population that are mild/strongly republican felt like one would be a pointless waste of time and public money.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    "It is intended that The Duchess of Cornwall will use the title HRH The Princess Consort when The Prince of Wales accedes to the Throne."

    https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/the-duchess-of-cornwall/biography/marriage-and-family
  • David Davis has damaged trust in UK, says Verhofstadt

    The former Belgian prime minister claimed the Brexit secretary’s comments over the weekend were “unacceptable”, and undermined confidence in the British government’s trustworthiness.

    The guy obviously had delusional expectations of the government's trustworthiness. Things should go better now than he has a more realistic view.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 46,071
    I note May has the Daily Express on board.

    Another nail in UKIP's coffin.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 18,298

    David Davis has damaged trust in UK, says Verhofstadt

    The former Belgian prime minister claimed the Brexit secretary’s comments over the weekend were “unacceptable”, and undermined confidence in the British government’s trustworthiness.

    GV is an irrelevance to the Uk - we only deal with the organ grinder.

  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,487

    David Davis has damaged trust in UK, says Verhofstadt

    The former Belgian prime minister claimed the Brexit secretary’s comments over the weekend were “unacceptable”, and undermined confidence in the British government’s trustworthiness.


    What did Davis do - I thought he just said the "nothing is agreed until it is all agreed" line?

  • David Davis has damaged trust in UK, says Verhofstadt

    The former Belgian prime minister claimed the Brexit secretary’s comments over the weekend were “unacceptable”, and undermined confidence in the British government’s trustworthiness.

    It's Verhofstadht's role to throw his toys out of the pram on behalf of the EU. All a necessary part of the process.

    He is the JRM/John Redwood for ultra-Remain.
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 797
    TGOHF said:

    Shine beginning to come off Corybn - we will see how deep and sticky his support actually is quite soon.

    Maybe. It might also be that we're just returning to the pre-election situation, where Corbyn performed poorly at the grind of opposition politics.
  • Scott_P said:

    @DPJHodges: Guardian: "Corbyn’s team believe Labour’s general election strategy of appealing to both leavers and remainers worked well and that spelling out a more specific position now would risk alienating key groups". Told you Remainers. He mugged you good and proper.

    Corbyn 2017: All Things To All Men

    Corbyn 2018: Nothing to Anyone Anymore.....
    Nah you can maintain being all things to all men until you're forced to take a stand - and you only need to do that once in government and by that point its too late for the electorate to do anything until the next election.

    Hence:
    Lib Dems 01 May 2010: All Things To All Men

    Lib Dems 31 May 2010: Nothing to Anyone Anymore.....
    The LDs simply aren't trusted by anyone.
    Which is karmic justice after spending decades trying to be both sides of the fence.
    But, even when they do take office, they can't be trusted to honour their own policies in good faith, be it tuition fees or EU referendums.

    The last time they took a (useful) national stand in my view based on principles was over civil liberties in opposition to Labour, and, to a lesser extent, Tory authoritarianism.

    They should make a brand out of their Liberalism, not their die-hard Europhilia.

    That could start with them calling out those who shout down others for the sake of "safe spaces".
  • Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    I doubt he will be beheaded no matter how bad he is.

    An adulterer and divorcee as Supreme Governor of The Church of England, that way madness lies.
    Are you really in a position to criticise those failings?
    I'm not planning on being Supreme Governor of The Church of England in the next few years, or ever.

    It is a looming constitutional nightmare, plus I suspect a lot of people won't be he happy with Queen Camilla, which is another mess.
    Camilla's not going to be Queen.

    She will remain Duchess of Cornwall.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morganatic_marriage
    There's was not a Morganatic marriage.

    Camilla is also Princess of Wales.

    Ergo on the ascension of Charles, she will become Queen.

    Department for Constitutional Affairs that she would become Queen when Charles succeeds to the throne.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4369217.stm
    She's not going to be called Queen, though.

    In any event, Charles is just following precedent.
    You don't know that. As and when Charles becomes king, there'll be little else she can be correctly called, unless he grants her a peerage in her own right (which might be the best option). Duchess of Portsmouth or Cleveland or something like that.
    At the time of her marriage it was stated she would be Princess Consort.
    It was. There was also legal opinion at the time that for Camilla to be so titled, there'd need to be an Act of Parliament granting her it. That said, having just checked, both Philip and Albert appear to have been given princely rank by letters patent so perhaps not. Still, it wouldn't be automatic and the better option (IMO) would be for her to be granted a non-inheritable peerage in her own right now, which she could carry over into the new reign.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 18,298
    Will he scweam and scweam too ?

    Honestly - this guy has no more influence over events than Nicla Sturgeon - utterly irrelevant.
  • It will only take a couple of minutes for EU citizens to register online to stay in the UK after Brexit, Home Office minister Brandon Lewis has said.

    There would, he said, be a "presumption in favour" of approving applications when the process begins late next year and people should hear in two weeks.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 18,298
    Looks like we are all going to freeze to death...

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/12/12/fears-uk-gas-prices-could-soar-winter-shock-events-hit-supply/

    The shutdown of the North Sea’s most important oil and gas pipeline system has been compounded by an explosion at a major gas processing facility in Austria, creating a perfect storm of disruption to gas supply across Europe.

    The Baumgarten explosion effectively obstructs the main entry point for Russian gas, which makes up a third of the continent’s overall supplies.

    The reverberations have been keenly felt in the UK, where gas prices have surged to more than 90p a therm from just over 57p last week.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 30,258
    edited December 2017
    TGOHF said:

    Looks like we are all going to freeze to death...

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/12/12/fears-uk-gas-prices-could-soar-winter-shock-events-hit-supply/

    The shutdown of the North Sea’s most important oil and gas pipeline system has been compounded by an explosion at a major gas processing facility in Austria, creating a perfect storm of disruption to gas supply across Europe.

    The Baumgarten explosion effectively obstructs the main entry point for Russian gas, which makes up a third of the continent’s overall supplies.

    The reverberations have been keenly felt in the UK, where gas prices have surged to more than 90p a therm from just over 57p last week.

    I better stick another log in the wood burner ;-)

    More seriously Italy have declared a state of emergency of the baumgarten explosion.
This discussion has been closed.